Health and Safety Legal Update Tom Miller, Senior Solicitor, Litigation IOSH North East of Scotland 10 September 2014
@TodsMurray @TomTods Introduction Health & Safety at Work Act 40 years young. The Red Tape Challenge and Legislation Update. Consultations and changes to Guidance/Codes of Practice. Case Update. The BIG Question YES or NO?
40 years of the Health and Safety at Work Act One of the most well drafted and effective pieces of legislation on the statute books. The statistics illustrate its impact. Of course, improvements in safety cannot be attributed to the Act alone. But what effect is the Red Tape Challenge having on the Act?
The Red Tape Challenge and Legislative Changes Government drive to cut down on bureaucracy and red tape. Health and Safety spotlight between 30 June 2011 and 21 July 2011. Majority of reforms proposed are now coming through as legislative changes. BUT the primary duties under HSWA remain largely unaffected.
Local Authority Enforcement Code Published in September 2013. Product of the Lofstedt Review. Sets out risk based approach to targeting health and safety inspections. Only organisations conducting high risk activities should be pro-actively inspected.
Personal Injury Changes Removal of strict liability rule brought into force on 1 October 2013. s.47 of the HSWA amended to remove standard of strict liability from certain health and safety regulations. No civil claim can be brought for breach of statutory duty unless regulation expressly provides for it. Employee will now need to prove common law negligence.
Change to legal status of self-employed workers Under current proposals, self-employed persons will be exempt from s. 3(2) of the HSWA, unless undertaking activities on a prescribed list. Consultation closed 31 August 2014. Changes likely to come into effect in 2015.
New Working at Height Guidance INDG401 and INDG455 revised in January 2014. Simplified versions of previous guidance. Complying with the guidance is normally enough to comply with the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
New Guidance for Care Homes HSG220 published in June 2014. A response, in part, by the HSE to Mid- Staffordshire NHS Public Inquiry. Guidance intended to help those managing care homes extensively rewritten and simplified from previous version.
New ACOP for safe work in confined spaces Consultation launched on 20 August 2014, ends on 30 September 2014. Seeks views on revised version of ACOP L101. One of the recommendations of the Lofstedt Review. Amends proposed to bring document up to date and make use and understanding of ACOP easier.
New ACOP for safe use of lifting equipment Consultation launched on 20 August 2014, ends on 14 October 2014. Similar process being undertaken to that applicable to work in confined spaces ACOP.
Replacement of CDM Regulations (1) Consultation ended on 6 June 2014. Main proposed changes are designed to: - Make Regs easier to understand; - Replace CDM Co-ordinator role with Principal Designer; - Replace ACOP with targeted guidance (but now unlikely to proceed); - Replace detailed and prescriptive requirements for individual and corporate competence with more generic requirements; - Align notification requirements with the EC Directive; and - Apply the Regulations to domestic clients but in a more proportionate way.
Replacement of CDM Regulations (2) 1,427 responses. From representative industry bodies, there was on balance a good, if not unanimous, degree of support for most of the proposals. Some controversy about application to entertainment industry. No targeted guidance new, shorter ACOP instead.
Fatal Accident Inquiry Reforms Intention is to modernise way in which Fatal Accident Inquiries are handled. FAI s are mandatory where a death occurs during the course of employment, unless Lord Advocate determines that criminal proceedings have adequately investigated circumstances. Should be fact finding inquiries, held in the public interest. Delays and desire to better involve families of the deceased in the process the main drivers behind reform. Provision for mandatory FAI s into work related deaths to be maintained.
Fee For Intervention (1) HSE s powers of cost recovery in place for almost 2 years now. Statistics for period between October 2012 and May 2014: - Average invoice = 509.50; - Average of over 2,500 invoices issued every two months. BUT recent independent review of HSE recommended consideration as to whether FFI should be abolished.
Fee For Intervention (2) I am very concerned at the strength of feeling from stakeholders that FFI has damaged HSE s reputation for acting impartially and independently, and thereby its integrity as a regulator. While few stakeholders disagreed with the principal of charging, concerns centred around two areas: firstly, that FFI is a penalty or fine regime, but without any of the usual safeguards for such statutory schemes; secondly, that the introduction of FFI is linked to the need for HSE to fill the gap in its budget created by the reduction in government funding, creating the impression that HSE has an income target to achieve.
Fee For Intervention (3) Recent statistics suggest an increase in inspections. Is FFI acting as an incentive for the HSE to carry out more inspections? Review panel, with independent chair, has now reported to HSE on FFI and impact on relations with business.
Fee For Intervention (4) Independent panel s report published last week. Key finding FFI has proven to be effective and should stay. No evidence than enforcement policy decisions influenced by FFI. Accepted that FFI has affected relations between HSE and dutyholders. Recommendation that simplified guidance be published. No plan to change definition of material breach.
Corporate Homicide No prosecutions as yet in Scotland. A number of cases remain under consideration. All prosecutions so far under equivalent legislation in England and Northern Ireland. Two recent acquittals PS & JE Ward Limited and MNS Mining. Around 50 cases still being investigated in England & Wales number of prosecutions is increasing. Fines substantial guidance suggests fine should seldom be below 500,000, although all fines so far have been below this level.
R v G Counsell M5 Firework Case. Key question did a material risk to health & safety arise due to the firework show, which any reasonable person would have appreciated and taken steps to guard against? Answer No. Even if it could have been established that smoke contributed to poor visibility, not foreseeable and therefore not material. Also causation problems. Absence of material risk and lack of evidence connecting smoke to crash meant prosecution failed. Judge commented that prosecution was dependent crucially on hindsight and consequence rather than foresight and risk.
Mobile Sweepers (Reading) Limited Corporate Manslaughter prosecution. Both company and its sole director, Mervyn Owens, prosecuted. Guilty pleas entered. Company went into liquidation shortly after fatality. Phoenix company subsequently established. Mobile Sweepers (Reading) Limited fine 8,000. Mr Owens fined 183,000, and disqualified as a director for five years. Also first publicity order under the new legislation.
Rotary Yorkshire v Hague High Court case dealing with an appeal against a Prohibition Notice. On appeal to Employment Tribunal, Rotary Yorkshire were unsuccessful. Rotary appealed to High Court successful. Court held that inspectors were wrong in belief that risk existed at time notice was served. Therefore Notice quashed.
R v Sellafield Limited; R v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited Court of Appeal case relevant to how Courts will calculate financial penalties. Both organisations argued that fines received at first instance following early guilty pleas were excessive. Appeals rejected by Court of Appeal. Fines had to be at a level that conveyed appropriate message to shareholders.
R v Svitzer Marine Tug boat operator. Boat sank on River Clyde in December 2007, with 3 crew killed. Prosecuted under s.2 HSWA. Fine of 1.7 million. Had been an earlier incident that the company had not reacted to, despite advice of own experts.
Scottish Borders Abattoir Limited Selkirk company recently prosecuted following death of employee. HSE investigation found failures to provide proper instruction, training or supervision. No suitable risk assessment, system of work unsafe. Prosecuted under s.2(1), s.33(1)(a) and s.33(1)(c) of the HSWA and r.3(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Entered not guilty pleas, but found guilty. Fined 100,000.
Scottish Independence and Health & Safety What would independence mean to health and safety enforcement in Scotland? There is a great deal of uncertainty Scotland s Future lacks any real detail. An independent Scotland s future membership of the EU is a key issue. A yes vote would mean significant change. A no vote would mean minimal change, most likely.
Stirling University Report Titled Occupational Health and Safety in Scotland: An opportunity to improve work environments for all. Lays out a blueprint for what the authors think health and safety in an independent Scotland should look like. Concludes that an Independent Scotland could deliver quickly the practicable, proven and cost-effective measures necessary to reform Scottish occupational health and safety and reverse the erosion of workplace protection imposed by Westminster.
Conclusions What does the future hold? In Scotland, a lot will depend on next week s vote! In general terms, there may be a slight decrease in number of inspections and general regulation. But must be seen against evidence of increasing financial penalties. Significant rise in number of individuals being prosecuted and convicted is also a clear trend.
Any Questions? Tom Miller Senior Solicitor, Litigation T: 0131 656 2330 M: 0753 813 1614 E: tom.miller@todsmurray.com